IDEA Funding Plan Draws Fire In Washington and Beyond

A Senate measure that would require pouring additional billions of
federal dollars into special education over the next 10 years continued
to be welcomed in some quarters last week, but drew sharp criticism
from the Bush administration, along with some special education
advocates, educators, and lawmakers.

To mandate such a massive increase in funding without first
re-examining how the nation educates students with disabilities would
only perpetuate problems in the existing system, some critics of the
plan said. Among the problems they cited were a lack of financing for
efforts to ensure a supply of well-qualified teachers and to reach
students with disabilities at a younger age, shortcomings that were
seen as leading some students to be referred to special education
unnecessarily.

A statement issued by the White House last week put the
administration on the record as "strongly" opposing the amendment,
which it called "costly and unwarranted."

"The administration recognizes the challenges faced by states and
localities in carrying out their responsibility to educate children
with disabilities," the May 8 policy statement said. "But the amendment
would undermine fiscal discipline by removing the program from the
appropriations process and increasing federal spending for special
education far in excess of the president's budget over the next 10
years, with no attention to improving educational results for these
children."

The Senate measure, which passed May 3 on a voice vote after
Republicans leaders concluded they lacked the votes to defeat it, would
amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to guarantee an
increase in funding for the program and move it from the discretionary
to the mandatory side of the budget, thereby shielding it from the
vagaries of the yearly appropriations process. ("Senate Backs 'Full Funding' of
Special Ed.," May 9, 2001.)

The bipartisan amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin
of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Republican Sens.
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and James M. Jeffords of Vermont. Proposed
during the ongoing effort to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the amendment seeks to "fully fund" the IDEA within six
years.

"Full funding" of the act is often referred to as providing states
with per-pupil federal aid for students with disabilities that is
equivalent to 40 percent of the average per-student cost. The amendment
calls for reaching that 40 percent level within six years, thereby
fulfilling what many advocates for such students believe was a promise
made by Congress when it first passed the IDEA in 1975. ("Plans Floated To Guarantee Spec. Ed.
Aid," April 25, 2001.)

The measure is expected to face significant hurdles in the
House.

"We don't normally comment directly on pending matters in the
Senate," said Dave Schnittger, a spokesman for Rep. John A. Boehner,
the Ohio Republican who chairs the House education committee. "But
suffice it to say we do not plan to include a similar amendment."

The proposal would boost IDEA funding by some $2.5 billion a year
over the next six years, which far exceeds the increase in special
education spending proposed by President Bush, who wants a $1 billion
increase in IDEA grants to states for 2002.

Lindsey Kozberg, a spokeswoman for Secretary of Education Rod Paige,
said Mr. Bush and Mr. Paige did not want to discuss the idea of
mandatory "full funding" until the congressional debate over next
year's scheduled reauthorization of the IDEA gets under way.

Setting the Stage

Even though it is unlikely to be signed into law, the Senate
amendment has revved up momentum in Congress and within the special
education community as lawmakers head toward the IDEA reauthorization
process. Political observers say the measure has helped set the stage
for how the debate will unfold.

The measure would raise spending to $21 billion—the 40 percent
funding level—by 2007, Sen. Harkin said in a statement released
when he proposed the amendment. The state-grants program within the
IDEA stands at $6.34 billion in the current fiscal year—about 15
percent of the full-funding level.

"This is a win-win-win amendment," he argued. "With [these] advance
appropriations, students with disabilities will get the public
education they have a right to, school districts will be able to
provide these services without cutting into their general education
budgets, and in cases where all IDEA-eligible kids are getting the
services they are entitled to, property-tax payers will get
relief."

But even advocates for special education didn't see the amendment's
passage as a clear win. For years, special educators have been used to
policies with not enough money to pay for them. Now they are faced with
the prospect of a windfall with no public debate on how best to use it,
and some people in the field said that situation puts them in a
difficult position.

"We are certainly very excited about the passage of the bill," said
Deborah A. Ziegler, a lobbyist for the Council for Exceptional
Children, an advocacy group based in Arlington, Va. "But we have been
steadfast in believing in not posing amendments to IDEA outside of the
reauthorization process, which gives a bigger conception of the law. In
this case, the decisions have major policy implications [and] were
formed not with consensus from the community."

Reactions to the amendment varied from state to state, where special
education directors are dealing with the daily challenges of running
programs. Some directors said they thought more money would not
necessarily be a magic bullet.

In the president's home state of Texas, the special education
director said it was dangerous to dump billions more dollars into
programs without changing the culture of special education that has
existed for a quarter-century.

"States and local districts have carried the burden for so long,"
said Eugene Lenz, the state special education director for Texas. "The
key isn't more money, but how it would be implemented. Just putting in
more money would pay for process compliance and not results for
kids."

Mr. Lenz said he would favor an increase in funding for
early-childhood programs in reading and mathematics for students in
general education, in an effort to prevent students from being placed
in special education in the first place.

Meanwhile, Doug Cox, the special education director in Virginia,
said the money would be put to good use even without a broader review
of the IDEA.

"There are always needs," he said. "This would be a great thing. It
would free up money in the states to be used for other things."

Views also differ over how the money could be used under the
amendment. One issue is whether it would be better to allow schools to
use the federal windfall to supplement money already being used for
special education, or to supplant state and local special education
funding, thus freeing up that money for other purposes.

When the IDEA originally became law, a provision prohibited the
federal aid from taking the place of existing special education
spending, so schools wouldn't reduce their own contributions once the
new money arrived from Washington. But during the last reauthorization,
in 1997, the law was changed to allow 20 percent of new federal funding
to be used for other purposes.

The Senate amendment stipulates that states could use 55 percent of
the increased funding for purposes other than special education. And,
if a local school district could demonstrate to the state that it was
serving all eligible children and providing them with the services they
were entitled to under the IDEA, the district would be able to use up
to 100 percent of the money for other purposes.

Some advocates said that without strict rules requiring schools to
use the bulk of the money for special education, schools would divert
the money to other needs.

But Bruce Hunter, a lobbyist for the American Association of School
Administrators, said there should be no concern over how schools would
use the money. "There are very few districts that could meet the
requirement of serving all of their students with special needs," he
said. "It's not like they would use the money to build roads. They're
schools. They would use it to hire more teachers or a reading
specialist."

Others said they were concerned that special education would be
saturated with funding, encouraging more placements of students into
special education.

Thomas B. Parrish, the director of the Center for Special Education
Finance, based in Palo Alto, Calif., said that with too much money in
special education and not enough in general education, special
education would become a dumping ground for students with any kind of
learning difficulties, because it would be the place with the most
ample resources.

"There has to be some supplanting allowed because the problem in
special education is increasing enrollment," Mr. Parrish said. "We know
we can serve kids with learning difficulties outside of special
education."

Mr. Parrish predicted that an influx of funding such as that offered
by the amendment, combined with standards-based accountability policies
in states, would serve to push more students into special
education.

"The more we raise the bar, the fewer kids are going to get over the
bar," he said.

For that reason, he suggested that advocates should aim to bridge
the divide between regular and special education.

The "Rules
Analysis" created by CAUSE, Michigan's special
education organization for parent training, gives updates on special
education legislation as well as answers to questions about the
ramifications of the changes.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.